Misuse of CAN-SPAM

[zachariah]

Got one today which had this at the beginning and end:

Subject: Hi wf-domain01

...

The enrolled (final) text of S. 877 as it was passed by the Senate on

November 25, 2003, and agreed to by the House of Representatives on

December 8, 2003, allows e-marketers to send UCE as long as the message

contains an opt-out mechanism, a functioning return e-mail address and

the legitimate physical address of the mailer. The bill was signed by

the President on December 16, 2003, and takes effect on January 1, 2004.

If you want unsubscribe remove at http://www.example.net/remove.html

...

If it was an attempt at being legit, then I feel sorry for them.

If it was an attempt to fake being legit (by ignoring the fact that the subject is misleading, and the address was acquired illegitimately *) then I I am :angry:.

Of course I assume it was an attempt at deceit since it is well established that spammers lie.

(* am I just dreaming this or aren't these also criteria for legit spam?)

[Wazoo]

Not mentioned in the write-up or your commentary was the header data .. and the color change in the link provided .. not sure from here whether you were just drawing attention to it or changed it yourself to that URL .. Not having seen one of these myself yet, I am curious, but hesitant to jump on your bandwagon just now on this one.

[turetzsr]

...Do you really care whether a spam complies with the can-spam act? I don't. spam is spam.

...Legalized theft is still theft, IMHO.

[Merlyn]

Rule #1: Spammers lie.

Russel's Admonition: Always assume that there is a measurable chance that the entity you are dealing with is a spammer.

Lexical Contradiction: Spammers will redefine any term in order to disguise their abuse of Internet resources.

Sharp's Corollary: Spammers attempt to re-define "spamming" as that which they do not do.

Finnell's Corollary: Spammers define "remove" as "validate."

[turetzsr]

Hi, Merlyn!

...Your response was fine if you enjoy typing but you could have just done something like I did in my reply in thread "Block spam based on URLs they contain". <g>

[Merlyn]

I know, I was just bored

[Robert Slade]

I've had several of these types of mail. Trouble is that US law only applies in the US. I am in the UK and what they are doing is illegal here.

I've also seen statements like this e-mail is sent from outside the EU and does not have to comply to EU rules. In that case it is from a marketing Company in Long Island advertsing what are made to look like UK companies, including using the a very similar Logo as my Hosting Company, but are US based ones.

Rob

[Merlyn]

I've had several of these types of mail. Trouble is that US law only applies in the US. I am in the UK and what they are doing is illegal here.

I've also seen statements like this e-mail is sent from outside the EU and does not have to comply to EU rules. In that case it is from a marketing Company in Long Island advertsing what are made to look like UK companies, including using the a very similar Logo as my Hosting Company, but are US based ones.

Rob

16202[/snapback]

It is really not the legality of it. It's spam and should be treated as such.

Legal has nothing to do with it.